[Cite as Grier v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-6361.]
COURT OF APPEALS
RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
: JUDGES:
WILLIE D. GRIER : W. Scott Gwin, P.J.
: John W. Wise, J.
Petitioner-Appellant : Julie A. Edwards, J.
:
-vs- : Case No. 11CA57
:
:
MARGARET A. BRADSHAW, : OPINION
WARDEN
Respondent-Appellee
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from Richland County
Court of Common Pleas Case No.
2011CV203H
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 5, 2011
APPEARANCES:
For Petitioner-Appellee For Respondent-Appellant
WILLIE D. GRIER, Pro se MIKE DEWINE
Richland Correctional Inst. Ohio Attorney General
Inst. No. A582.505
P.O. Box 8107 BY: WILLIAM H. LAMB
Mansfield, Ohio 44901-8107 Assistant Attorney General
441 Vine Street, 1600 Carew Tower
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
[Cite as Grier v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-6361.]
Edwards, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Willie Grier, appeals from the June 2, 2011, Judgment Entry of
the Richland County Court of Common Pleas denying his Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶ 2} On or about June 17, 2009, appellant pleaded guilty in Crawford County
Case No. 08-CR-0093 to one count of possession of drugs in violation of R.C.
2925.11(C)(4)(c), a felony of the third degree. Appellant was sentenced to two years in
prison.
{¶ 3} Appellant appealed his conviction and sentence. In his direct appeal,
appellant argued, in relevant part, that the trial court erred in failing to accept the original
plea agreement entered into between appellant and the State. Pursuant to an Opinion
filed on February 28, 2011 in State v. Grier, Crawford App. No. 3-10-09, 2011-Ohio-902,
the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed appellant’s conviction and sentence.
{¶ 4} On February 11, 2011, appellant, who was incarcerated at Richland
Correctional Institution, had filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus in the Richland
County Court of Common Pleas. Appellant, in his petition, alleged that his confinement
was void because while, in his Crawford County case, pursuant to plea negotiations, the
parties had agreed to a one year prison sentence, the trial court had sentenced
appellant to two years in prison.
{¶ 5} Thereafter, on March 30, 2011, appellee filed a Motion to Dismiss
appellant’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant
Richland County App. Case No. 11CA57 3
to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). Appellee, in its motion noted that appellant had “availed himself of
the remedy of a direct appeal which affirmed the judgment of the trial court.”
{¶ 6} Pursuant to a Judgment Entry filed on June 2, 2011, the trial court denied
appellant’s writ on the basis of res judicata. The trial court, in its Judgment Entry, noted
that appellant alleged in his petition that he was entitled to release from confinement
based on the same legal and factual arguments that he made to the Third District Court
of Appeals in his direct appeal.
{¶ 7} Appellant now raises the following assignments of error on appeal:
{¶ 8} “I. THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
WHEN IT CONCLUDED THAT GRIER MADE A JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE ON
APPEALS.
{¶ 9} “II. THE HABEAS CORPUS COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
INDIRECTLY GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS.”
I, II
{¶ 10} Appellant, in his two assignments of error, argues that the trial court erred
in denying his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. We disagree.
{¶ 11} The Supreme Court has addressed the propriety of a 12(B)(6) motion in a
habeas action. “‘R.C. Chapter 2725 prescribes a basic, summary procedure for
bringing a habeas corpus action.’” Waites v. Gansheimer, 110 Ohio St.3d 250, 2006-
Ohio-4358, 852 N.E.2d 1204, ¶ 8, quoting Chari v. Vore (2001), 91 Ohio St .3d 323,
327, 744 N.E.2d 763. “First, application is by petition that contains certain information.
R.C. 2725.04. Then, if the court decides that the petition states a facially valid claim, it
must allow the writ. R.C. 2725.06. Conversely, if the petition states a claim for which
Richland County App. Case No. 11CA57 4
habeas corpus relief cannot be granted, the court should not allow the writ and should
dismiss the petition.” Pegan v. Crawmer (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 607, 609, 653 N.E.2d
659, see also State ex rel. Sneed v. Anderson, 114 Ohio St.3d 11, 11-12, 2007-Ohio-
2454, 866 N.E.2d 1084,1085.
{¶ 12} In the case sub judice, appellant already unsuccessfully raised the same
issues in his direct appeal as he raised in his petition. In his direct appeal, which was
unsuccessful, appellant argued, in part, that the trial court erred by failing to sentence
him in accordance with the binding contract that he executed with appellee. The
doctrine of res judicata now bars him from using habeas corpus to obtain a successive
appellate review of such issue. See Shie v. Smith, 123 Ohio St.3d 89, 2009-Ohio-4079,
914 N.E.2d 369, ¶ 2.
Richland County App. Case No. 11CA57 5
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly denied appellant’s petition.
Appellant’s two assignments of error are, therefore, overruled.
{¶ 14} The judgment of the Richland County Court of Appeals is affirmed.
By: Edwards, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Wise, J. concur
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
JUDGES
JAE/d0822
[Cite as Grier v. Bradshaw, 2011-Ohio-6361.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
WILLIE D. GRIER :
:
Petitioner-Appellant :
:
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
MARGARET A. BRADSHAW, :
WARDEN :
:
Respondent-Appellee : CASE NO. 11CA57
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion on file, the
judgment of the Richland County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Costs assessed
to appellant.
_________________________________
_________________________________
_________________________________
JUDGES